Dylan Mulvaney

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Again, you aren't just arguing with me.  You're arguing with a growing number of doctors and scientists in the field about this.  Are they extremists too?

This is disingenuous.  Increased understanding, increased caution are in no way absolute restriction.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

This is disingenuous.  Increased understanding, increased caution are in no way absolute restriction.

They are literally changing their entire approach to handling gender dysphoria in adolescents.  Either you don't have good reading comprehension or you're being deliberately obtuse.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This rush to affirmative care with puberty suppression, hormone treatment and surgery in light of this reads more like conversion therapy for gay kids than true care.

I agree but,,, I'm not the one arguing an extreme.  I'm not the one who wants government to impose my will.

Edited April 27, 2023 by icanthearyou

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree but,,, I'm not the one arguing an extreme.  I'm not the one who wants government to impose my will.

But you're not calling me an extremist, right?

I can't believe you form these thoughts and then no internal filter stops you from transmitting it publicly.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

But you're not calling me an extremist, right?

I can't believe you form these thoughts and then no internal filter stops you from transmitting it publicly.

No, I asked if you were choosing one of the two extremes.

And again, what is it with the personal jabs.  Why?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

No, that is another lie.  Please read the article again.  Moderation, caution, slow methodical approach.  Not a total change of the "entire approach.

Again, reading is your friend:

It is in light of the high likelihood of desistance that the Dutch model recommends “watchful waiting,” not affirm-first. Indeed, the Dutch team did not even recommend social transition (“real life experience” in the felt gender) in the early stages of puberty, but only after the teenager tried living as his true sex and found it too distressing. Social transition was seen as something to be done cautiously and incrementally, in conjunction with pharmaceutical puberty suppression, which the Dutch team thought of as part of the diagnostic rather than treatment phase. In its new draft guidance, England’s NHS strongly advises against childhood social transition and recommends it for adolescents only, based on informed consent and with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

They are walking away from the "affirm-first" approach completely - to the point of not even recommending so much as social transitioning (which is no more than using preferred pronouns, name changes, affirmation of different gender, using opposite sex facilities, dress and hairstyle changes, etc), for the Dutch only after a good period of time attempting to live as their true sex and even then very cautiously and incrementally.  England's NHS is now strongly advising against even social transition for children and again, cautiously for teens.  At no point are they in favor of hormones, puberty suppression and surgery for minors.

I don't know how much clearer it could be.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, I asked if you were choosing one of the two extremes.

This "what, who me?" routine might convince you, but when you say "Do you not support the other extreme position?", thinking people know better.  Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

And again, what is it with the personal jabs.  Why?

Because of the stuff you're saying.  You really ought to think harder before pressing Submit Reply because none of this is helping your case or your reputation here.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Again, reading is your friend:

It is in light of the high likelihood of desistance that the Dutch model recommends “watchful waiting,” not affirm-first. Indeed, the Dutch team did not even recommend social transition (“real life experience” in the felt gender) in the early stages of puberty, but only after the teenager tried living as his true sex and found it too distressing. Social transition was seen as something to be done cautiously and incrementally, in conjunction with pharmaceutical puberty suppression, which the Dutch team thought of as part of the diagnostic rather than treatment phase. In its new draft guidance, England’s NHS strongly advises against childhood social transition and recommends it for adolescents only, based on informed consent and with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

They are walking away from the "affirm-first" approach completely - to the point of not even recommending so much as social transitioning (which is no more than using preferred pronouns, name changes, affirmation of different gender, using opposite sex facilities, dress and hairstyle changes, etc), for the Dutch only after a good period of time attempting to live as their true sex and even then very cautiously and incrementally.  England's NHS is now strongly advising against even social transition for children and again, cautiously for teens.  At no point are they in favor of hormones, puberty suppression and surgery for minors.

I don't know how much clearer it could be.

Thank you but,,, I read the entire article.  I understand the emphasis on not choosing either extreme.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This "what, who me?" routine might convince you, but when you say "Do you not support the other extreme position?", thinking people know better.  Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

Because of the stuff you're saying.  You really ought to think harder before pressing Submit Reply because none of this is helping your case or your reputation here.

The words have meaning.  You cannot change the meaning.  I asked you if you support one of the two extremes.  Why not own it?  Be honest, please.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

25 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The words have meaning.  You cannot change the meaning.  I asked you if you support one of the two extremes.  Why not own it?  Be honest, please.

Which part of this response didn't answer the question?
 

I'm pretty close to inline with where those notable conservative extremist countries, Sweden, Norway, the UK are headed:

...following systematic reviews of evidence, health authorities in Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have agreed that no evidence exists that the benefits of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones outweigh the risks. All three countries have since imposed measures to reduce drastically the accessibility of these drugs to teenagers.

I'd probably go further, yes, but if the US would at least move toward common sense like these folks, I'd be quite happy.

And yes, it should go without saying that we should not be doing cosmetic surgery for gender dysphoria on minors.  That you believe that's extreme says more about you than me - none of it good.

 

To re-summarize:

- At the very least I think we should go back to the "watchful waiting" approach over "affirm-first."

- I acknowledge my personal views would go further than that but that if we could at least recover the above I would be quite happy.  It would be a welcome dose of caution and prudence

- I, along with Sweden, Norway, and the UK, believe we should not be performing gender reassignment surgeries on minors.

 

I answered your questions - straightforward and fully.

[DKW 86 7,440]

IOW, some here on the forum, and in the world, a small very vocal minority, want to dictate the "norm " as "Affirm-First." Cant even have a debate on this, fterall, "the science is settled."

I have a personal friend of 47 years that recently transitioned in under a year...INCLUDING a run for the state legislature. Now, after all the fame and notoriety, they are showing signs of the beginning of detransitioning, appearing as a male again. In case you want to know how politically correct this all has gotten, just typing the term "detransitioning" sent Grammarly into alarm mode.  

We are really living in the beginnings of Orwell's 1984. 
The Elite own the Government.
The Government wants to be able to track all the money.
The Government is taking over Free Speech and even Language. 

Carlin was sssooo right. The "Owners" of this nation just want "Obedient Workers," nothing more or less. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,431]

On 4/27/2023 at 1:08 PM, TitanTiger said:

Again, reading is your friend:

It is in light of the high likelihood of desistance that the Dutch model recommends “watchful waiting,” not affirm-first. Indeed, the Dutch team did not even recommend social transition (“real life experience” in the felt gender) in the early stages of puberty, but only after the teenager tried living as his true sex and found it too distressing. Social transition was seen as something to be done cautiously and incrementally, in conjunction with pharmaceutical puberty suppression, which the Dutch team thought of as part of the diagnostic rather than treatment phase. In its new draft guidance, England’s NHS strongly advises against childhood social transition and recommends it for adolescents only, based on informed consent and with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

They are walking away from the "affirm-first" approach completely - to the point of not even recommending so much as social transitioning (which is no more than using preferred pronouns, name changes, affirmation of different gender, using opposite sex facilities, dress and hairstyle changes, etc), for the Dutch only after a good period of time attempting to live as their true sex and even then very cautiously and incrementally.  England's NHS is now strongly advising against even social transition for children and again, cautiously for teens.  At no point are they in favor of hormones, puberty suppression and surgery for minors.

I don't know how much clearer it could be.

That ("Dutch model") sounds reasonable to me.  What makes you so sure that a similar protocol is not being practiced in the U.S.? 

Also, the above protocol would likely violate at least some transgender legislation being passed - including Alabama's.

Specifically:

"Social transition was seen as something to be done cautiously and incrementally, in conjunction with pharmaceutical puberty suppression, which the Dutch team thought of as part of the diagnostic rather than treatment phase."

And keep in mind that early stages of puberty can begin as early as 8 in girls and 9 in boys.  In other words, the concept of (legal) "minors" (18) - as stipulated in most of these laws - is virtually irrelevant medically speaking.

Bottom line, I don't think legislation regulating gender dysphoria is appropriate, especially since the scope of the "problem" is unknown.  It's political pandering.  This is something that should remain a private matter between the patients and the practitioners.

If politicians feel compelled to do something, let them commission the study - as Louisiana has done -  to find out if there is really a problem first.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

That ("Dutch model") sounds reasonable to me.  What makes you so sure that a similar protocol is not being practiced in the U.S.? 

 

 

We’re in a continuous loop. No matter how often we answer this question, you just keep asking it. 

[homersapien 11,431]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

We’re in a continuous loop. No matter how often we answer this question, you just keep asking it. 

And no one has provided a credible response.

Yet the emotional, reactionary indignation of what's happening in our country remains sky high.

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And no one has provided a credible response.

Yet the emotional, reactionary indignation of what's happening in our country remains sky high.

 

Once you arrive at a position, you seemingly are unable to process any information to the contrary.

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Once you arrive at a position, you seemingly are unable to process any information to the contrary.

To the contrary of what?  The proposition that practitioners in the U.S. are generally being overly aggressive in transitioning patients to their perceived gender? 

What data-based (non anecdotal) information can you provide that demonstrates that? 

My position is that I haven't seen it. But not having seen it, doesn't mean I am convinced it doesn't exist.  I can assure you I am open to such evidence  - if or when - it is presented. 

I get the feeling you are over-reacting to anecdotal examples - which undoubtedly exist.  My position is that such "evidence" doesn't necessarily represent the general state of affairs in the field.

More importantly such (non) data/evidence doesn't justify legislation by politicians, who are not expert in the field by definition.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

To the contrary of what?  The proposition that practitioners in the U.S. are generally being overly aggressive in transitioning patients to their perceived gender? 

What data-based (non anecdotal) information can you provide that demonstrates that? 

My position is that I haven't seen it. But not having seen it, doesn't mean I am convinced it doesn't exist.  I can assure you I am open to it - if or when - it does. 

I get the feeling you are over-reacting to anecdotal examples - which undoubtedly exist.  My position is that such "evidence" doesn't necessarily represent the general state of affairs in the field.

More importantly such (non) data/evidence doesn't justify legislation by politicians, who are not expert in the field by definition.

 

 

Do you support the revised WPATH guidelines?

[homersapien 11,431]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you support the revised WPATH guidelines?

Obviously, I am not expert and therefore not that familiar with the organization, but I certainly support their stated mission:

To promote evidence based care, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health.

Their guidelines seemed very reasonable to me as a layman.

So, yes. 

Why not?

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, I am not expert and therefor not that familiar with the organization, but I certainly support their stated mission: To promote evidence based care, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health.

Their guidelines seemed very reasonable to me as a layman.

So, yes.  Why not?

So you support their stated mission you quoted or do you also support their new guidelines?

[homersapien 11,431]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So you support their stated mission you quoted or do you also support their new guidelines?

Both 

(Sorry, I thought that was clear.)

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Both 

(Sorry, I thought that was clear.)

How familiar are you with those guidelines?

[homersapien 11,431]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

How familiar are you with those guidelines?

I read them.  Why do you ask?

If you have a point to make, make it.

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,005]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I read them.  Why do you ask?

If you have a point to make, make it.

Do you think a psychologically healthy person can choose to become a eunuch? 

[TexasTiger 13,005]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think a psychologically healthy person can choose to become a eunuch? 

Why the face palm, @icanthearyou?

[homersapien 11,431]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you think a psychologically healthy person can choose to become a eunuch? 

Don't know. Not my field and I am pretty much ignorant of the subject.

(But then, I don't think a psychologically healthy person could support Trump, so who knows?)

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by homersapien